Review the last movie you viewed (NO LISTS) IV

[monkeyskin]

I'm going to have to disagree.


...strongly.

Whaaaaat? Payne's film is great fun while Johnnie To's triad film, while it has some good moments, is just average.

 

[lazarus]

PICK FLICK!

 

[monkeyskin]

Her pussy gets so wet you can't believe it.

 

[lazarus]

Whoa.

I assume you're not talking about Lance's Mom. That shit's drier than an August in Arizona.


YOU BETZLER!

 

[theFly51]

odd combination... is that for both or separate or what?

lol I saw Election on Showtime and i went out and bought Jackass 2.5.

I've been wanting to see 2.5 for a while and it was ok. Not as funny as part 2 though.

 

[Daddysgonnapay]

Walk Hard was absolutely hilarious. It's incredibly silly and doesn't at all take it self seriously, but still manages to do a much-needed riff on the pretentious music biopic genre. If anything, this movie re-affirmed two things for me: John C. Reilly's one of the 5 funniest guys working today and Jenna Fischer is painfully hot.

Definitely check out if you enjoy comedy, but don't get too caught up in the realism of it all.

Hubby and I laughed throughout this...it is nice to just watch silliness every once in awhile..."I've been cut in half real bad".... is one of my favorit lines

 

[LMP]

Hubby and I laughed throughout this...it is nice to just watch silliness every once in awhile..."I've been cut in half real bad".... is one of my favorit lines

...wrong kid died!

 

[theFly51]

How's your mind, blown?

 

[lazarus]

The man still knows how to frame a face. Better than anyone, really.

Soon after David Strathairn came into the film, I started taking it seriously. It's amazing how he disappeared into this thing. Not a showy drunk performances, but one that just slowwwly oozes the melancholia of an ongoing drunk with few respites. That scene with the chips...wow. This is Oscar material, though I doubt he'll be remembered.

And then somewhere in the big scene between Weisz and Jones, with that long take during the former's monologue, it put its other hooks in me, and I fell under its spell. The British actress digs very deep with some very short screen time, and looked fantastic onscreen in all her ramshackle glory.

The beginning is certainly a little shaky. You're sitting there pointing out the various WKW trademarks: super grainy, repetitive shots (alright, the train, WE GET IT), dialogue that seems like it's more monologue...but once it gets on the road it definitely takes you somewhere. Now I don't know if WKW captured Memphis, or captured Nevada as he has with Hong Kong, but it doesn't matter. Lizzie's character is getting out of something familiar, and the locations are foreign enough by comparison to be legitimate. In his films, the outside world/society is barely suggested anyway; the extras drift like apparitions in the background, so focused is our attention on his leads.

The sense of melancholia that pervades previous work is still present. Perhaps it's difficult to feel empathy with these familiar faces; Law, Portman, and to a lesser extent Weisz have cinematic baggage that makes it difficult to place them in the WKW universe. But for me, it worked. I don't understand the problems people have with Jude's work here. Not convincing as a glorified short-order cook? I bought it. The man can do so much with glances, unspoken moments, few words. He's getting to become underrated.

Portman was a breath of fresh air, especially compared to the rest of her filmography. Even though she already played tainted in Closer, she was still the angst-ridden Natalie. Here she's breezy, and light...until she needs to be heavier, and I found her convincing.

Jones, who obviously isn't a pro, still has the wide-eyed face that's perfect for what's being projected onto her. And maybe I'm just a WKW apologist, but I did think she opened up over the course of the film, to the point where she begins to stand up more for herself (and her feelings) in the Vegas sequences, and when she comes back to the diner, there's a confidence , even a slight cockiness, that wasn't there before.

Lastly regarding the actors, it was VERY nice to see that cameo from Chan Marshall complementing her music on the soundtrack. Delicate but perfect work.
This isn't Major WKW, but who cares? A confection is still tasty if done right, and it's still a bittersweet one that still has an aftertaste. The critics think the master is slumming; I'm perfectly happy that he decided to drop by the neighborhood. Who knows what could happen if he decides to stay?

 

[Lancemc]

Agreed on all accounts Laz. Especially with regards to the performances. Weisz really blew me away in particular, Strathairn less so if only because he's ALWAYS amazing.

 

[lazarus]

Lance, did you get ahold of the European Cut yet? I downloaded it and plan to watch it soon to do an accurate comparison.

 

[Lancemc]

Turns out I downloaded then same cut we saw in theaters.

I may try to find the right one again when I have more time.

 

[deep]

I really want to see Blueberry Nights in a theater

I have to drive 90 minutes to do that.

So, I will probably stay and watch two movies while there.

My options for the second film are:

Flawless or Under the Same Moon (La Misma Luna)

recommendations, anyone?

 

[lazarus]

I've heard only bad things about Flawless, not too much about the second one.

Any other choices?

 

[deep]

I have seen all the other so-called "art films" playing at this multiplex

I could wait about 105 minutes and see clooney's "Leatherheads"


flawless does have m caine and demi moore,
they did make one movie i enjoyed many years ago.

"blame it on rio"

is not pc
and would not get made today, i think



edit to add

here is the theater with films and showtimes

 

[VintagePunk]

I know it's not exactly the type of thea-tuh that's discussed in this thread lately, but the other night I watched The Golden Compass. I was really curious about it since reading the trilogy around the time that the film premiered in theatres. I absolutely loved the books, and wanted to see for myself exactly where the film went wrong, or if the awfulness was exaggerated due to some sort of religious right conspiracy.

My conclusion is that it was a good idea that was poorly executed. I think the film came in at around 110 minutes, and it simply wasn't enough time to tell the story adequately. Having read the book, I knew what was going on, but I kept wondering how on earth someone who hadn't read it could possibly follow the events on screen. Characters were not fleshed out, and so their motivations were not apparent at all, except maybe in the most superficial of ways. There was this odd, contradictory sensation while watching it that the movie was rushing through scenes to fit them all in, the pace was way too fast, and yet overall, the movie dragged.

There were a couple of key concepts that are absolutely vital to the story that I felt were not examined nearly enough in the movie, their importance wasn't given adequate attention. One of these were shown in the book by being a sort of constant inner-dialogue that occurred between two characters (if you're familiar with the story, you'll know what I mean). This being the case, I can see how in some scenes people would be left thinking "so what?" There were a few other scenes where in the book, the sense of terror was expressed very, very well, and in the movie, not so much.

Maybe this was a story that just didn't translate well to the screen.

 

[deep]

Since I did not read any of the books

and only saw The Golden Compass. as a "movie", I can say I really liked it.


I like it more than that 'Narnia' movie.

 

[VintagePunk]

Since I did not read any of the books

and only saw The Golden Compass. as a "movie", I can say I really liked it.


I like it more than that 'Narnia' movie.

What did you think of the plot and the characters? Did you think they were fully fleshed out? It's hard to tell what it would be like for someone who hasn't read the book once you have. It's not like you can unread it, you know?

 

[lazarus]

I liked it as well. I agree it should have been longer, and it's a shame it didn't do well, because now it's not clear whether or not they will ever make a sequel. It pretty much put the studio out of business.

 

[VintagePunk]

I liked it as well. I agree it should have been longer, and it's a shame it didn't do well, because now it's not clear whether or not they will ever make a sequel. It pretty much put the studio out of business.

I agree. The story gets better and better, and I'm sorry that it most likely won't be shown on screen. There are some incredible moments and settings that come up later in the first book (they didn't go all the way to the end of the first book in the movie) and in the subsequent books that would have been awesome to see depicted.


Btw, I strongly encourage people to read the books. They were marketed as young adult, but wow...I can't see 12 year olds grasping a lot of what's in them. A lot of it is very dark.

 

[deep]

I do know that about books

I thought Kite Runner movie was good,
but could not judge as only a movie, because I had read the book


I watched the Lolita with Jeremy Irons before I read the book, really like the film a lot

Lolita, the book is a master work!

I tried to watch Kubrick's Lolita, after reading the book, I could not watch it at all.


As for Compass?

I just remember liking is as a movie. I had heard about the religious overtones. But, I did not really get into all that.

The characters were fine, I don't know what is missing.

Yes, the movie did cover a lot, I do imagine a lot was left out.

I know in Kite Runner and Lolita much was left out.

The Polar Bears were great, much better than all those stupid animals in Narnia.

I did see this on imdb site

If you haven't read the book you'll love it, if you have you'll be a bit disappointed.

So it looks like I am the former
and you the later?

 

[VintagePunk]

Yeah, religion seems to have been entirely left out of the movies. I think I read at the time it was to make it more palatable for the viewing audience, and to avoid the backlash from the religious right. In the movie, the powers are vaguely referred to only as "The Authority."

In any case, I'm glad to hear the two of you liked it. From what I read when it came out, I thought it was almost universally panned.

 

[LMP]

Just got P.T. Anderson's debut Hard Eight (Sydney) on NetFlix tonight. Hopefully watch it today and/or tomorrow.

 

[deep]

Just got P.T. Anderson's debut Hard Eight (Sydney) on NetFlix tonight. Hopefully watch it today and/or tomorrow.

It was Hard Eight in the theaters when it came out.

I remember seeing it because my date liked Gwyneth Paltrow

I did not know who PT was then. I have seen all of his films in the order they were released on the big screen. Hard Eight is a strong debut, he has many of his usual actors.
Keep in mind that he was only around 26 when he made it.

I think you will enjoy it.

 

[Carek1230]

Becoming Jane. It was too long and didn't really keep my interest. My phone rang twice so I did get interrupted during the movie but I didn't like it.

 

[deep]

The man still knows how to frame a face. Better than anyone, really.

nice shot, boring scene

I can agree with most of what you wrote

the opening and closing segments with Jude Law were stiff and lifeless

There was zero chemistry between Jude and Nora
also between the love of his life? Cat P ?

Yes, it did pick up in Mempihis

and in Nevada
if this were my first WKW I would wonder what all the fuss was about

In the Mood for Love is one gem of a perfect little film

I like Jude, he was good in Closer, great in AI, I caught a bit of Existenze on cable recently and he was good in that too.

In this he was so flat, I could not buy for one minute he slung hash and hauled thrash. Also, how can NY never have any people around, an empty diner? until you need a fight to have simultaneous bloody noses,

the opening segment was painful, there were some groans

When it moved on to Tenn it did pick up.

Nevada was ok, too

then it came back to NY and went flat, again

 

[LMP]

It was Hard Eight in the theaters when it came out.

I remember seeing it because my date liked Gwyneth Paltrow

I did not know who PT was then. I have seen all of his films in the order they were released on the big screen. Hard Eight is a strong debut, he has many of his usual actors.
Keep in mind that he was only around 26 when he made it.

I think you will enjoy it.

Cool beans. I've loved everything he's made, hope this holds up.

Where would you put against his filmography?

 

[deep]

I thought you might ask that.

It is a 100% confident and sure hand of film making.

I think Magnolia is his best film.

Boogie Nights has grown on me, there was a time I did not rate it so high, but now I think it is outstanding.

PDL I saw once on the big screen and was a bit distracted paying too much attention to Adam Sandler playing against what had been his type casting up to that point. I do think it is a very good film but think many will think it does not measure up to Magnolia or Boogie Nights because it is not the same scale.


with those four films, I can see PT's style and imprint.

TWBB, a great film. I sat through it a second time. I wanted to hear the soundtrack and see the images in a theater for the full effects.

Anyways, it is quite a departure from all his other films.


Hard eight has outstanding performances from Reily, Hall and Sam Jackson. Gwyneth Paltrow is surprisingly good, too. There is some of that great streetwise dialog and a splash of violence.


It is a low budget film, and a debut, so don't get your expectations too high.

I can easily say it is much better than the veteranWKW's Blueberry Nights

 

[lazarus]

Hard Eight is probably at the bottom of PTA's work for me, but that's not saying much as everything he's done has been great. It says more about how quickly he became a master.

 

[lazarus]

I watched the Lolita with Jeremy Irons before I read the book, really like the film a lot

Lolita, the book is a master work!

I tried to watch Kubrick's Lolita, after reading the book, I could not watch it at all.

Lolita is one of my all-time fav books, and I much prefer the Adrian Lyne version to Kubrick's. Which is weird, because Nabokov himself worked on the screenplay for the original adaptation. I think it's a little to goofy--Peter Sellers takes over the film.

Now the newer version maybe isn't funny enough, as Nabokov's writing certainly has many witty moments, but it's more faithful to the tragic tone of the text. Irons was a PERFECT Humbert Humbert.

It's a shame censors prevented this from showing in U.S. theatres, despite being based on a classic, and it just proves that America in 1997 wasn't much more sophisticated than 40 years earlier.

Fucking puritans.